So we are now staying the personalisation now is part of the autograph?
Where do you draw the line?
Or are you saying any alteration on the card with an auto shouldn’t be labelled authentic?
It’s not BGS or PSA issue for the personalisation. It’s 100% the person doing the wiping who should have the criticism pointed to (eg pokeflute) or being dishonest towards the artists (saying you won’t sell, but do exactly that).
If I’m purchasing a PSA/BGS slabbed card, I would like to know if the submitter used some sort of chemical to remove any aspect of it. Especially if we’re talking cards worth thousands of dollars.
I would also hope that the “leading voice of authenticity” would have the expertise and insight to catch if a cards surface has been tampered with.
Sure, we know about the wiping and the rules around it, but what about a few years from now? New people buying autographs thinking this is a legitimate non personalized card, who have spent thousands on it?
But who knows, Maybe by then no one in the hobby will care or Pokemon will have changed things.
In baseball a single signed ball on the sweet spot can be worth more than a team signed ball. Sometimes people try to remove or paint over less valuable autos to enhance the value of the star players signature. Here is PSA’s stance on removal. Ultimately removing ink doesn’t qualify as a single signed ball. Maybe this is something that will happen with personalizations in pokemon. If they put “personalization removed”, or “altered” on the label. I think most would be happy with that solution.
Ultimately it’s just an issue about transparency. If everyone was fully informed then I wouldn’t have a problem.
The kicker here being that when I tried to inform BGS and their audience, I was silenced. I know it’s just because of some dumb social media employee. But I’m in the unique position of both having been a staff member at this autograph event and also having my own megaphone.
This issue will continue to reoccur until the grading companies decide to address it.
Crazy idea: The only way to confirm personalization, sketches, and dates would be for artists to scan cards after signing them, so that grading companies could verify it later. Obviously this would never happen, nor is it logistically feasible given the artists, Pokemon and different grading companies are different entities.
Agree with @swolepoke. Grading companies are in the business of authenticating, slabbing and advertising their ability to verify signed cards. That includes personalization, dates, and alterations, not just the signature. If grading companies can’t or won’t do this, that’s fine but then they need to stop grading signed cards. If they are going to do it, it should be done in a holistic manner. In the case of the Ariga card it should be labeled "Authentic - Altered", so buyers are informed and can decide how much they value it.
In reality, grading companies will nver be able to verify 100% of the time if ink was added or removed on the card after the signature as done, so there will always be a margin of error here.
@pfm pretty absurd they blocked your comment, have you considered doxing them?
Please tell me you’re joking
He’s not and it’s a great idea
2700 Summit Ave, Ste 100 Plano, TX 75074
It isn’t that crazy but just isn’t realistic or practical from the grading company’s side.
It’s more like one of the many things the seller can do to create provenance. I’ve had artists take a picture of the signed card before they hand it to me. I prefer it this way, as if I ever need to sell it, I can easily reassure the new owner that they can check with the artist to ensure 1) it’s genuine 2) it’s unaltered.
As the grading company themselves cannot guarantee the card wasn’t altered, buyers should demand provenance from the seller should they care about alteration. This just goes back to due diligence, I.e buying the seller, not the slab.
Correct
Oh that’s REALLY bad
Somebody needs to hire some e4 folks. Can spot these fakes easily
since pwcc has been taking them down maybe you gotta send them thru ol prob123 instead 
Idk what y’all are talking about, this one has a cat sketch on it too and the signature starts with a “k” type letter???
I know I’m in the minority here, but I think “altering a signature” should involve the signature itself being altered since that’s what the company is supposed to be grading/authenticating as real and what it’s condition is. The whole “to Timmy” personalization thing was done with the intention to keep busloads of craigslist mercenaries from sitting in lines farming additional signatures for rich inconsiderate people at the expense of fans who wanted a signed card for themselves.
But in the aftermarket, no one gives a shit about the “to timmy” personalization, it’s actually pretty hideous which is why people were requesting it in Japanese. That only got progressively worse when the personalizations had to be full birth names like “Anthony” or “Christopher” rather than “Tony” or “Chris” or something we actually are called on a regular basis.
Unless sketches and personalizations are going to be graded/authenticated, it feels like such a nonissue.
edit didn’t mean to reply to you directly Will. And these literal fakes being graded is the bigger problem imo. Start with worrying about the sigs and properly grading/authenticating them as genuine. Forgery should be the big concern that we hold these graders accountable for rather than if someone wipes off “to timmy” or not.
To: thony
Way off topic, Chris.
But also, this card is a forged autograph and sketch, there was never a personalization lol.
Kinda a perfect example. If my name was Anthony and in a rush an illustrator signed my name “Thony” I’d want to wipe that shit off without being harassed about it and told my signed card should no longer be slabbed/authenticated as genuine.
